Unfortunately the Olympics have become big money events and everything associated with it is also big money. In 2016 New Zealand sent 199 athletes to Rio. Total cost: $12.917m or $65,000 per athlete. If you remove the overhead type costs that are insensitive to the number of athletes you are still looking at something like $44,000 per athlete. The NZOC only raised $11.762m so the Olympics put the NZOC over $1 million in debt.
You can thank drug cheat Liza Hunter-Galvan for this. The NZ intent is clear: it costs money to send athletes to the Olympics so they rightly want to see some return on their investment in promoting the sport. A sprinter getting knocked out in their heat does nothing to improve the sport, more likely it lowers interest and motivation for the masses. The selection criteria is threefold: a qualitfying time, a realistic expectation of a top 16 finish, and a proven record of performing at international meets. Enter Liza Hunter-Galvan who ran a qualifying time at an obscure meet. NZ had already been burned by Liza by paying for her to go to international meets only to have her post Instagram photos at tourist locations and then completely fold during the race. She sued the organisation twice to get an all expenses paid trip to the Olympics and failed during her race both times. I have no problem with NZ decision, representing your country is not a right, the country has the right to expect something in return.
By your logic why would any country send athletes to a heat? Let’s just have Olympic finals?
Representing your country isn’t a right, but it should be when the IOC invite you.
I'm from NZ and it's an absolute disgrace. Zoe Hobbs who qualified under the IOC but the NZOC didn't select her is one of those athletes. The NZOC actually used Zoe in their Olympic uniform photoshoots and then turned around and denied her entry. As top NZ sprint coach James Mortimer said "It's not a money situation or a case that they can't afford to send them.
"If world athletics says you are fit to go to the Olympics, then they should let you go."
But New Zealand will send Laurel Hubbard, a man, to compete against women.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/olympic-weightlifter-lambrechs-women-new-zealand-laurel-hubbard
What’s with all these standards and exclusions.
Nobody should be left out of the Olympics, no matter their sex, religion, sexual preference, nationality, age or otherwise.
It’s the definition of discrimination
This exclusion system is not healthy
Any male is free to start as a woman as well to go to the olympics. If you dont do it and are too bad for the male category dont complain. Tax payers dont want to pay for your touristic adventures
khcglhc wrote:
What’s with all these standards and exclusions.
Nobody should be left out of the Olympics, no matter their sex, religion, sexual preference, nationality, age or otherwise.
It’s the definition of discrimination
This exclusion system is not healthy
…I forgot to add
…and ability
Nkeita is the one that surprises me.
I remember there was a bidding war for him between Australia and New Zealand. He chose New Zealand and this is how they repay him?
The thing about this business of having a reasonable chance of finishing in the top 16 has always seemed like BS to me. It's guessing. The Olympics have had busloads of likely medal contenders wash out and of people who looked to be mid packers finish better than top 16, as you point out by mentioning Snell. I would say that almost any athlete who has met the A standard has a reasonable chance at a top 16 finish. And what's the big deal about a top 16 finish anyway, at least in athletics? In any of the track events that are shorter than 3,000 meters you can turn in a top 16 performance and not even make the finals.
There may have been a time when funding a good number of athletes was a problem for a country like New Zealand but now, in a high profile sport like athletics? I'd bet that almost any athlete with an A standard performance could find the money to go. I know there have been Kiwis who have gone to the World Cross Country championships on their own dimes.
But if you just want to have a really tough standard, tougher than the IOC's, I suppose it's your own business. But even then, scrap this business of trying to guess who is likely to finish in the top 16, at least in a sport like athletics with a large number of competitors. Have criteria way more objective than someone guessing how well an athlete will do.
UK Athletics is just as bad. Mark Pearce ran a steeple PB this year, won the British trials, and qualified via rankings so received an invite from WA. UK Athletics rejected the invite because they thought he didn't have potential - he's 25...
A UK race walker broke the 50k British record this year and UKA also turned down his invitation.
It's a joke. Anyone who qualifies should be able to go. National governing bodies are supposed to be looking out for their athletes, not just focussing on medals and finals.
NZ sent 37 athletes to Rome, including Peter Snell. They paid for 200 to attend Rio. Like it or not, for a country with a small economy, return on investment has to be a factor. Every country selects in different ways and the selection criteria is no secret. US has the trials, you could argue that is unfair on an athlete that has a bad day.
I don't understand how some countries are picking their athletes. Every country should do top x finishers for the event like the USA does with top 3.
I was watching a summary of the UK trials and I think it was Laura Muir who finished 2nd or 3rd and has to wait to see if she would be selected. That is crap. Don't select based on anything subjective, pick the top 3 (or however many you want to send) and let the placing be the only criteria provided they meet the standard.
And if you are have an athlete that is invited send them. Is the USA refusing any entry?
I agree this is a joke, yet lots of countries still do this. The cost is a stupid explanation. Let athletes raise their own funds if that is a problem.
In 2012 Henrik Ingebrigtsen barely qualified for the Olympics. By many of these countries' criteria he would not have been sent to the Olympics. He ended up finishing 5th in the final and may have helped inspire his brothers to take up the sport.
Sure let’s let people who are wealthy enough to afford participating in the Olympics be how they make the team for their country. Just like they used to when the modern games started.
Maybe the National governing bodies would rather spend that money on developing many athletes rather than sending a sprinter to Tokyo to get eliminated in the first round?
The simple answer is that the Olympics are not about participation.
Get good.
Here in the developing world of Costa Rica, our Olympic Committee is thrilled to send anyone who qualifies. We are immensely proud, for example, of Gerald Drummond, ranked 36th in the 400-m hurdles, and gave him a full-page spread in the national paper as a send-off to Tokyo. Perhaps it is our humility compared to the likes of the UK or NZ.
u know nothing jon snow wrote:
Sure let’s let people who are wealthy enough to afford participating in the Olympics be how they make the team for their country. Just like they used to when the modern games started.
Maybe the National governing bodies would rather spend that money on developing many athletes rather than sending a sprinter to Tokyo to get eliminated in the first round?
The simple answer is that the Olympics are not about participation.
Get good.
yeah 20th in the world is just trash... I do note they make exceptions for people they like....
The host country Japan is doing it. They have very harsh standards especially in swimming. Their top swimmer Rikako Ikee survived a battle with leukemia two years ago. She would have had a big opportunity at multiple individual gold medals before that health scare. Now she is slowly regaining form but is not close to prior level. She won 4 races in the Japanese trials and made the A standard in her specialty event 100 butterfly. The Japanese are allowing her to swim relays only. Their standard in the 100 butterfly was considerably faster than the Olympic number.
The situation is quite "simple" - the NZOC want to basically guarantee that all track and field representatives are capable of not just "making up the numbers" and hence have implemented a tougher standard though the criteria itself is illogical and is left up to far too much ambiguity and arbitrary interpretation by the selection panel. The entire selection criteria document it almost seems like was written by multiple people with differing opinions on what is considered worthy enough to be selected and just simply collated. Classic bureaucratic nonsense from people who think they are smart but aren't.
For example the criteria for first time athletes - they need only one of the following three for conditional selection (according to the selection document)
1) Ranked in the top 40 on the WA list (as if 5 places between 45 and 40 means anything at all and is any guarantee of a "worthy" performance)
2) Are "tracking positively" (which simply can't be a criteria on it's own so immediately there is a flaw in the criteria somehow nobody picked up on)
3) Have demonstrated that they are capable of achieving a Top 16 placing at the 2020 OGs
with the potential to achieve a Top 8 finish (again which makes no sense because the difference between being ranked 40th in the world and finishing top 16 - especially in deep, tough events like the sprints and middle distances is absolutely astronomical).
There is then the next section for returning athletes
1) Ranked in the top 32 (not 40 vs first time athletes which in a sensical situation should actually be reversed to where a returning athlete get's more leeway)
2) Demonstration of the capability to finish in the top 16 (and there is no context to this as I will show with the Willis selection).
Summary - it's just a cluster-f--k of confusing, poorly worded, poorly thought out criteria and caveats that one can't help but wonder is ultimately there to just make any selection completely at the personal discretion of whoever in the NZOC and whatever their agenda is (which could quite simply be saving $$$ which would be very, very tragic and probably why sport in NZ is limited to excellence in cricket and rugby with a few outliers every now and then).
And this has to be touched on because ironically the one athlete that really exposes the absurdity of this situation in NZ is one of their absolute greatest - Nick Willis. Willis doesn't fit the criteria for a returning athlete by way of ranking (he wasn't top 32 in the rankings) and was selected based off "ability to finish top 16". You can see the case right now - Willis, despite a PR of 3.29 very rarely entered Olympic Games with one of the top 12 times in the world prior to the games. He had the 13th best time going into Athens, 16th going in Beijing, 5th into London (probably and ironically his worst showing at an Olympics despite that ranking) and 17th going into Rio, but is of course one of the most savvy racers of all time and has 2 Olympic medals off being a master of being able to run 39.0 seconds for the last 300m. So of course the case is "Nick has the ability to finish top 16 because in the 3.37-38 style races with the big finish he's done it before." The problem here that look at those pre-championships bests and where they had him on the list - this year he is the 170th best. Rio was FIVE years ago. There is nothing objectively that points to him possibly having top 16 potential in THIS Olympic year. Sure there was a time where running 3.38 for him off 3.00 minutes at 1200 was easy - now he is running 3.38 maxing out and getting beaten by athletes not even close to Tokyo.
So really what we see here is the exposure of a selection policy that frames itself up as all about excellence and potential, but really is about who the NZOC thinks makes the best stories for them irrespective of that. It is heartbreaking to see athletes from that country, deemed good enough by the world governing body to compete get turned away, period. It could all be so simple yet for some reason isn't. Just pencil-pushers and know-it-alls that need to feel powerful and in control just getting in the way of their own feet and in the process shattering the dreams of young athletes and stunting the growth of the sport even more. Like what incentive is there to be a track and field athlete in that country now unless you have otherworldly talent straight away? None.
Excellent post.